Recommended Posts

Interests:I was born in Iowa, but escaped at an early age. I grew up in a Christian family, was educated in a Christian school my Mom started and ran, and then went to Hamilton College at the age of 16. After getting a BA in Studio Arts, I went to work for InterVarsity Christian Fellowship, where I served for ten years. In 2003, I left IV to get my MDiv at Gordon-Conwell Seminary. I married the lovely Karina in July of 1997, our son Timothy was born in June of 2002, and Evelyn was born in July of 2006. I now serve as the pastor of Trinity Alliance Church near Rochester, NY.

The National Review is publishing their choices for the 25 Best Conservative Movies of the last 25 years, nominated by their readership and chosen (and reviewed) by their staff writers. Here's a link to the article on the full list.

#25: Gran Torino (2008): Clint Eastwood directs and stars in the ultimate family movie unsuitable for the family. He plays Walt Kowalski, a caricature of an old-school, dying-breed, Polish-American racist male, replete with post-traumatic stress disorder from having served in the Korean War. Kowalski comes to realize that his exotic Hmong neighbors embody traditional social values more than his own disaster of a Caucasian nuclear family. Dirty Harry blows away political correctness, takes on the bad guys, and turns a boy into a man in the process. He even encourages the cultural assimilation of immigrants. It feels so good, you knew the Academy would ignore it. [review by Andrew Breitbart]

# 24: Team America: World Police (2004): This marionette movie from South Park creators Trey Parker and Matt Stone is hard to categorize as conservative. It’s amazingly vulgar and depicts Americans as wildly overzealous in fighting terror. Yet the film’s utter disgust with air-headed, left-wing celebrity activism remains unmatched in popular culture. As the heroes move to stop a WMD apocalypse, they clash with Alec Baldwin, Tim Robbins, Susan Sarandon, Sean Penn, and a host of others, whom they take out with gunfire, sword, and martial arts before saving the day. The movie, like South Park itself, reveals Parker and Stone as the two-headed George Grosz of American satire. [review by Brian C. Anderson]

# 23: United 93 (2006): Minutes after terrorists struck on 9/11, Americans launched their first counterattack in the War on Terror. Director Paul Greengrass pays tribute to the passengers of United 93 by refusing to turn their story into a wimpy Hollywood melodrama. Instead, United 93 unfolds as a real-time docudrama. Just as significantly, Greengrass provides a clear depiction of our enemies. United 93 opens as four Muslim terrorists pray in a hotel room. Several hours later, the hijackers’ frenzied shrieks to Allah mingle with the prayerful supplications of United 93’s passengers as they crash through the cockpit door and strike a blow against those who would terrorize our country. [review by Andrew Coffin]

# 22: Brazil (1985): Vividly depicting the miserable results of elitist utopian schemes, Terry Gilliam’s Brazil portrays a darkly comic dystopia of malfunctioning high-tech equipment and the dreary living conditions common to all totalitarian regimes. Everything in the society is built to serve government plans rather than people. The film is visually arresting and inventive, with especially evocative use of shots that put the audience in a subservient position, just like the people in the film. Terrorist bombings, national-security scares, universal police surveillance, bureaucratic arrogance, a callous elite, perversion of science, and government use of torture evoke the worst aspects of the modern megastate. [review by S. T. Karnick]

# 21: Heartbreak Ridge (1986): Clint Eastwood’s foul-mouthed Marine sergeant Tom Highway makes quick work of kicking Communist Cubans out of Grenada. And, boy, does “Gunny” hate Commies. Not only does he kill quite a few, he also refuses a bribe of a Cuban cigar, saying: “Get that contraband stogie out of my face before I shove it so far up your a** you’ll have to set fire to your nose to light it.” A welcome glorification of Reagan’s decision to liberate Grenada in 1983, the film also notes how after a tie in Korea and a loss in Vietnam, America can finally celebrate a military victory. Eastwood, the old war horse, walks off into retirement pleased that he’s not “0–1–1 anymore.” Semper Fi. Oo-rah! [review by James G. Lakely]

# 20: Gattaca (1997): In this science-fiction drama, Vincent (Ethan Hawke) can’t become an astronaut because he’s genetically unenhanced. So he purchases the identity of a disabled athlete (Jude Law), with calamitous results. The movie is a cautionary tale about the progressive fantasy of a eugenically correct world—the road to which is paved by the abortion of Down babies, research into human cloning, and “transhumanist” dreams of fabricating a “post-human species.” Biotechnology is a force for good, but without adherence to the ideal of universal human equality, it opens the door to the soft tyranny of Gattaca and, ultimately, the dystopian nightmare of Brave New World. [review by Wesley J. Smith]

# 19: We Were Soldiers (2002): Most movies about the Vietnam War reflect the derangements of the antiwar Left. This film, based on the memoir by Lt. Col. Hal Moore (played by Mel Gibson), offers a lifelike alternative. It focuses on a fight between an outnumbered U.S. Army battalion and three North Vietnamese regiments in the battle of Ia Drang in 1965. Significantly, it treats soldiers not as wretched losers or pathological killers, but as regular citizens. They are men willing to sacrifice everything to do their duty—to their country, to their unit, and to their fellow soldiers. As the movie makes clear, they also had families. Indeed, their last thoughts were usually about their loved ones back home. [review by Mackubin Thomas Owens]

# 18: The Edge (1997): Screenwriter David Mamet uses a wilderness survival story about friendship, betrayal, and forgiveness to present a few truths rarely seen in movies: Knowledge has its limits, fortitude is a weapon against hardship, and honor can motivate even the shallowest man to great sacrifice. Some have interpreted the film as a Cold War allegory because it features a menacing bear. The main characters (played by Anthony Hopkins and Alec Baldwin) understand that there is neither wisdom nor nobility in waiting for others to save them, and that they must take responsibility for their own lives and souls. Life is unfair, but to challenge life on its own terms is an exhilarating reward, no matter the outcome. [review by Michael Long]

# 17: The Chronicles of Narnia: The Lion, The Witch, and The Wardrobe (2005): The White Witch runs a godless, oppressive, paranoid regime that hates Santa Claus. She’s a cross between Burgermeister Meisterburger and Kim Jong Il. The good guys, meanwhile, recognize that some throats will need cutting: no appeasement, no land-for-peace swaps, no offering the witch a snowmobile if she’ll only put away the wand. Underlying the narrative is the story of Christ’s rescuing man from sin—which is antithetical to the leftist dream of perfected man’s becoming an instrument for earthly utopia. The results of such utopian visions, of course, are frequently like the Witch’s reign: always winter, and never Christmas. [review by Tony Woodlief]

# 16: Master and Commander (2003): This naval-adventure film starring Russell Crowe is based on the books of Patrick O’Brian, and here’s what A. O. Scott of the New York Times said in his review: “The Napoleonic wars that followed the French Revolution gave birth, among other things, to British conservatism, and Master and Commander, making no concessions to modern, egalitarian sensibilities, is among the most thoroughly and proudly conservative movies ever made. It imagines the [H.M.S.] Surprise as a coherent society in which stability is underwritten by custom and every man knows his duty and his place. I would not have been surprised to see Edmund Burke’s name in the credits.” [review by John J. Miller]

# 15: Red Dawn (1984): From the safe, familiar environment of a classroom, we watch countless parachutes drop from the sky and into the heart of America. Oh, no: invading Commies! Laugh if you want—many do—but Red Dawn has survived countless more acclaimed films because Father Time has always been our most reliable film critic. The essence of timelessness is more than beauty. It’s also truth, and the truth that America is a place and an idea worth fighting and dying for will not be denied, not under a pile of left-wing critiques or even Red Dawn’s own melodramatic flaws. Released at the midpoint of Reagan’s presidential showdown with the Soviet Union, this story of what was at stake in the Cold War endures. [review by John Nolte]

# 14: A Simple Plan (1998): A defining insight of conservatism is that whatever transcendent inspiration there may be to moral principles, there is also the humble fact that morality works. Moral institutions and customs endure because they allow civilization to proceed. Sam Raimi’s gripping A Simple Plan illustrates this truth. Bill Paxton plays a decent family man who lives by the book in every way. But when he’s cajoled into breaking the rules to get rich quick, he falls under the jurisdiction of the law of unintended consequences and discovers that simple morality is not simplistic, and that a seductively simple plan is a siren song if it runs against the grain of what is right. [review by Jonah Goldberg]

# 13: Braveheart (1995): Forget the travesty this soaring action film makes of the historical record. Braveheart raised its hero, medieval Scottish warrior William Wallace, to the level of myth and won five Oscars, including best director for Mel Gibson, who played Wallace as he led a spirited revolt against English tyranny. Braveheart taught that freedom is not just worth dying for, but also worth killing for, in defense of hearth and homeland. Six years later, amid the ruins of the Twin Towers, Gibson’s message resonated with a generation of American youth who signed up to fight terrorists, instead of inviting them to join a “constructive dialogue.” Liberals have never forgiven Gibson since. [review by Arthur Herman]

# 12: The Dark Knight (2008): This film gives us a portrait of the hero as a man reviled. In his fight against the terrorist Joker, Batman has to devise new means of surveillance, push the limits of the law, and accept the hatred of the press and public. If that sounds reminiscent of a certain former president—whose stubborn integrity kept the nation safe and turned the tide of war—don’t mention it to the mainstream media. Our journalists know that good men are often despised by the mob; it just never seems to occur to them that they might be the mob themselves. [review by Andrew Klavan]

# 11: The Lord of the Rings (2001, 2002, 2003): Author J. R. R. Tolkien was deeply conservative, so it’s no surprise that the trilogy of movies based on his masterwork is as well. Largely filmed before 9/11, they seemed perfectly pitched for the post-9/11 world. The debates over what to do about Sauron and Saruman echoed our own disputes over the Iraq War. (Think of Wormtongue as Keith Olbermann.) When Frodo sighs, “I wish none of this had happened,” Gandalf’s response speaks to us, too: “So do all who live to see such times. But that is not for them to decide. All we have to decide is what to do with the time that is given to us.” [review by Andrew Leigh]

# 10: Ghostbusters (1984): This comedy might not get Russell Kirk’s endorsement as a worthy treatment of the supernatural, but you have to like a movie in which the bad guy (William Atherton at his loathsome best) is a regulation-happy buffoon from the EPA, and the solution to a public menace comes from the private sector. This last fact is the other reason to love Ghostbusters: When Dr. Peter Venkman (Bill Murray) gets kicked out of the university lab and ponders pursuing entrepreneurial opportunities, a nervous Dr. Raymond Stantz (Dan Aykroyd) replies: “I don’t know about that. I’ve worked in the private sector. They expect results!” [review by Steven F. Hayward]

# 9: Blast from the Past (1999): Revolutionary Road is only the latest big-screen portrayal of 1950s America as boring, conformist, repressive, and soul-destroying. A decade ago, Hugh Wilson’s Blast from the Past defied the party line, seeing the values, customs, manners, and even music of the period with nostalgic longing. Brendan Fraser plays an innocent who has grown up in a fallout shelter and doesn’t know the era of Sputnik and Perry Como is over. Alicia Silverstone is a post-feminist woman who learns from him that pre-feminist women had some things going for them. Christopher Walken and Sissy Spacek as Fraser’s parents are comic gems. [review by James Bowman]

# 8: Juno (2007): The best pro-life movies reach beyond the church choirs and influence the wider public. Juno was a critical and commercial success. It didn’t set out to deliver a message on abortion, but much of its audience discovered one anyway. The story revolves around a 16-year-old who finds a home for her unplanned baby. The film has its faults, including a number of crass moments and a pregnant high-school student with an unrealistic level of self-confidence. Yet it also exposes a broken culture in which teen sex is dehumanizing, girls struggle with “choice,” and boys aimlessly try — and sometimes downright fail — to become men. The movie doesn’t glamorize much of anything but leaves audiences with an open-ended chance for redemption. [review by Kathryn Jean Lopez]

# 7: The Pursuit of Happyness (2006): Based on the life of self-made millionaire Chris Gardner (Will Smith), this film provides the perfect antidote to Wall Street and other Hollywood diatribes depicting the world of finance as filled with nothing but greed. After his wife leaves him, Gardner can barely pay the rent. He accepts an unpaid internship at a San Francisco brokerage, with the promise of a real job if he outperforms the other interns and passes his exams. Gardner never succumbs to self-pity, even when he and his young son take refuge in a homeless shelter. They’re black, but there’s no racial undertone or subtext. Gardner is just an incredibly hard-working, ambitious, and smart man who wants to do better for himself and his son. [review by Linda Chavez]

# 6: Groundhog Day (1993): This putatively wacky comedy about Bill Murray as an obnoxious weatherman cursed to relive the same day over and over in a small Pennsylvania town, perhaps for eternity, is in fact a sophisticated commentary on the good and true. Theologians and philosophers across the ideological spectrum have embraced it. For the conservative, the moral of the tale is that redemption and meaning are derived not from indulging your “authentic” instincts and drives, but from striving to live up to external and timeless ideals. Murray begins the film as an irony-soaked narcissist, contemptuous of beauty, art, and commitment. His journey of self-discovery leads him to understand that the fads of modernity are no substitute for the permanent things. [review by Jonah Goldberg]

# 5: 300 (2007): During the Bush years, Hollywood neglected the heroism of American soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan—but it did release this action film about martial honor, unflinching courage, and the oft-ignored truth that freedom isn’t free. Beneath a layer of egregious non-history—including goblin-like creatures that belong in a fantasy epic—is a stylized story about the ancient battle of Thermopylae and the Spartan defense of the West’s fledgling institutions. It contrasts a small band of Spartans, motivated by their convictions and a commitment to the law, with a Persian horde that is driven forward by whips. In the words recorded by the real-life Herodotus: “Law is their master, which they fear more than your men[, Xerxes,] fear you.” [review by Michael Poliakoff]

# 4: Forrest Gump (1994): It won an Oscar for best picture—beating Pulp Fiction, a movie that’s far more expressive of Hollywood’s worldview. Tom Hanks plays the title character, an amiable dunce who is far too smart to embrace the lethal values of the 1960s. The love of his life, wonderfully played by Robin Wright Penn, chooses a different path; she becomes a drug-addled hippie, with disastrous results. Forrest’s IQ may be room temperature, but he serves as an unexpected font of wisdom. Put ’em on a Whitman’s Sampler, but Mama Gump’s famous words about life’s being like a box of chocolates ring true. [review by Charlotte Hays]

# 3: Metropolitan (1990): Whit Stillman’s Oscar-nominated debut takes a red-headed outsider into the luxurious drawing rooms and debutante balls of New York’s Upper East Side elite. One character, a committed socialist, falls for the discreet charm of the urban haute bourgeoisie. Another plaintively theorizes the inevitable doom of his class. A reader of Jane Austen wonders what’s wrong with a novel’s having a virtuous heroine. And a roguish defender of standards and detachable collars delivers more sophisticated conservative one-liners than a year’s worth of Yale Party of the Right debates. With mocking affection, gentle irony, and a blizzard of witty dialogue, Stillman manages the impossible: He brings us to see what is admirable and necessary in the customs and conventions of America’s upper class. [review by Mark Henrie]

# 2: The Incredibles (2004): This animated film skips pop-culture references and gross jokes in favor of a story that celebrates marriage, courage, responsibility, and high achievement. A family of superheroes—Mr. Incredible, his wife Elastigirl, and their children—are living an anonymous life in the suburbs, thanks to a society that doesn’t appreciate their unique talents. Then it comes to need them. In one scene, son Dash, a super-speedy runner, wants to try out for track. Mom claims it wouldn’t be fair. “Dad says our powers make us special!” Dash objects. “Everyone is special,” Mom demurs, to which Dash mutters, “Which means nobody is.” [review by Frederica Mathewes-Greene]

# 1: The Lives of Others (2007): “I think that this is the best movie I ever saw,” said William F. Buckley Jr. upon leaving the theater (according to his column on the film). The tale, set in East Germany in 1984, is one part romantic drama, one part political thriller. It chronicles life under a totalitarian regime as the Stasi secretly monitors the activities of a playwright who is suspected of harboring doubts about Communism. Critics showered the movie with praise and it won an Oscar for best foreign-language film (it’s in German). More Buckley: “The tension mounts to heart-stopping pitch and I felt the impulse to rush out into the street and drag passersby in to watch the story unfold.” [review by John J. Miller]

Honorable Mentions: These films were closely considered, and almost made the list: Air Force One, Amazing Grace, An American Carol, Barcelona, Bella, Cinderella Man, The Exorcism of Emily Rose, Hamburger Hill, The Hanoi Hilton, The Hunt for Red October, The Island, Knocked Up, The Last Days of Disco, The Lost City, Miracle, The Patriot, Rocky Balboa, Serenity, Stand and Deliver, Tears of the Sun, Thank You for Smoking, Three Kings, Tin Men, The Truman Show, Witness.

Not necessarily. What about those scenes with the barber? Is it necessarily "racist" to swap epithets with someone if the two of you (or three of you) are doing it all in fun? ("Fun" may be the wrong word. "Familiarity" might be closer to the mark. At any rate, it's not a negative thing.)

"Sympathy must precede belligerence. First I must understand the other, as it were, from the inside; then I can critique it from the outside. So many people skip right to the latter." -- Steven D. Greydanus
Now blogging at Patheos.com. I can also still be found at Facebook, Twitter and Flickr. See also my film journal.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Interests:I was born in Iowa, but escaped at an early age. I grew up in a Christian family, was educated in a Christian school my Mom started and ran, and then went to Hamilton College at the age of 16. After getting a BA in Studio Arts, I went to work for InterVarsity Christian Fellowship, where I served for ten years. In 2003, I left IV to get my MDiv at Gordon-Conwell Seminary. I married the lovely Karina in July of 1997, our son Timothy was born in June of 2002, and Evelyn was born in July of 2006. I now serve as the pastor of Trinity Alliance Church near Rochester, NY.

I haven't seen Gran Torino, but #24 - Team America: World Police is a movie I turned off after maybe ten minutes, in disgust. So, this list is for your information and enjoyment, not necessarily endorsed by yours truly.

Not necessarily. What about those scenes with the barber? Is it necessarily "racist" to swap epithets with someone if the two of you (or three of you) are doing it all in fun? ("Fun" may be the wrong word. "Familiarity" might be closer to the mark. At any rate, it's not a negative thing.)

Okay, fine, but that's just one scene out of several; I mean, there's no denying that Eastwood's character in the film is a foul-mouthed racist, is there?

The barber scene, on the other hand, is part of Walt "turning a boy into a man," I presume-- and to that end, I also take issue with National Review's definition of manhood.

Mind you, I liked Gran Torino quite a bit-- I just think this magazine is finding virtue in all the wrong places.

"Sympathy must precede belligerence. First I must understand the other, as it were, from the inside; then I can critique it from the outside. So many people skip right to the latter." -- Steven D. Greydanus
Now blogging at Patheos.com. I can also still be found at Facebook, Twitter and Flickr. See also my film journal.

Link to post

Share on other sites

: Okay, fine, but that's just one scene out of several; I mean, there's no denying that Eastwood's character in the film is a foul-mouthed racist, is there?

Of course not. But I think it's assuming too much to suggest that Eastwood's racism is being extolled when someone praises the film for "blowing away political correctness".

Fair enough, but I'm not sure what other aspect of the film they have in mind. The barber shop scene is, well, just one, fairly short scene, and, in the context of the film, I'd say it's something of an extension of Walt's racism, isn't it? Beyond that, I can't think of what NR has in mind.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Interests:I was born in Iowa, but escaped at an early age. I grew up in a Christian family, was educated in a Christian school my Mom started and ran, and then went to Hamilton College at the age of 16. After getting a BA in Studio Arts, I went to work for InterVarsity Christian Fellowship, where I served for ten years. In 2003, I left IV to get my MDiv at Gordon-Conwell Seminary. I married the lovely Karina in July of 1997, our son Timothy was born in June of 2002, and Evelyn was born in July of 2006. I now serve as the pastor of Trinity Alliance Church near Rochester, NY.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

#20 and #23 are undeniably both great movies and conservative movies, and I'm glad they're on the list. So that's two out of six so far, that's not bad, all things considered.

Hmmm..the thing that stood out about United 93 to me was it did not portray the terrorists as inhuman monsters... they were portrayed as nervous and even scared. I felt the movie was not conservative or liberal...just honestly human.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

After seeing more of this list I am having a hard time understanding what they are getting at. United 93 can be used as a litmus test for a conservative impulse I suppose, but I thought they way it tracks the breakdown in communication systems could even be an indictment of the trust conservatives place in all the tools that are supposed to protect us from evil. It is a bit like Tom Bell's uncle telling him it is all "vanity."

Otherwise, the thing I liked so much about the film was how non-partisan it actually is. It strips away all the talking head business to get to the awful story of combat on this airplane. But then again, I couldn't watch the film more than once so these were all first (and only) reactions.

So is Conservative code for nationalistic? I can see that there are some other themes to these films, but most of them have a strong nationalistic tone.

This is a creepy thought. I predict many Eastwood films on the list but am holding out for Thin Red Line.

"...the vivid crossing of borders between film and theology may save the film from the banality of cinema and festival business, and it may also save the church from the deep sleep of the habitual and the always known."

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

I'm tempted to say that these aren't necessarily "conservative" movies so much as Republican ones-- or perhaps, neoconservative ones, which is in keeping with the direction National Review has gone in recent years.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Interests:I was born in Iowa, but escaped at an early age. I grew up in a Christian family, was educated in a Christian school my Mom started and ran, and then went to Hamilton College at the age of 16. After getting a BA in Studio Arts, I went to work for InterVarsity Christian Fellowship, where I served for ten years. In 2003, I left IV to get my MDiv at Gordon-Conwell Seminary. I married the lovely Karina in July of 1997, our son Timothy was born in June of 2002, and Evelyn was born in July of 2006. I now serve as the pastor of Trinity Alliance Church near Rochester, NY.

I'd be hard-pressed to identify "nationalism" as a theme in Gattaca or United 93, and though I haven't seen them, nothing I've read would indicate a nationalistic theme in Brazil or Gran Torino. Out of seven posted so far, if only three can be said to have nationalism as a theme, I think you're exaggerating. [edit:] now #18 is up, and it's not nationalistic, either...

Hmmm..the thing that stood out about United 93 to me was it did not portray the terrorists as inhuman monsters... they were portrayed as nervous and even scared. I felt the movie was not conservative or liberal...just honestly human.

I'm kind of amused, kind of hurt that you thing depicting terrorists as inhuman monsters is a conservative approach. I thought United 93 was conservative in that it kept the focus - for both terrorists and passengers - on personal responsibility for one's actions, rather than blaming larger cultural factors. [edit:] now that #18 is up, I'd argue for "the importance of personal responsibility" as being one of the uniting threads of these films.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Interests:I was born in Iowa, but escaped at an early age. I grew up in a Christian family, was educated in a Christian school my Mom started and ran, and then went to Hamilton College at the age of 16. After getting a BA in Studio Arts, I went to work for InterVarsity Christian Fellowship, where I served for ten years. In 2003, I left IV to get my MDiv at Gordon-Conwell Seminary. I married the lovely Karina in July of 1997, our son Timothy was born in June of 2002, and Evelyn was born in July of 2006. I now serve as the pastor of Trinity Alliance Church near Rochester, NY.

Link to post

Share on other sites

: Fair enough, but I'm not sure what other aspect of the film they have in mind. The barber shop scene is, well, just one, fairly short scene, and, in the context of the film, I'd say it's something of an extension of Walt's racism, isn't it?

Depends on what you mean by "extension", or "racism". Is it "racist" to trade epithets with a friend? I don't think so. Most of the time, it's racist to discriminate against someone on the basis of their skin colour or genetic heritage (and I add the qualifier "most of the time" because we can all think of cases where this kind of discrimination is actually warranted, e.g. hiring only Asian actors to play Asian characters; see also the debates over SNL's portrayal of the half-white, half-black Obama, and whether the race of the actor playing him matters). But simply swapping friendly barbs isn't "racist" at all, even if the barbs are based on race and not on, say, age or gender or whatever.

: Beyond that, I can't think of what NR has in mind.

Well, you'll note that I haven't challenged the characterization of Eastwood's character as "foul-mouthed".

Nezpop wrote:

: Hmmm..the thing that stood out about United 93 to me was it did not portray the terrorists as inhuman monsters... they were portrayed as nervous and even scared. I felt the movie was not conservative or liberal...just honestly human.

I haven't read NR's blurb on the film yet, but I think the "conservatism" has more to do with the American passengers who fight back vs. the German passenger who wants to be diplomatic and negotiate with the terrorists, etc.

"Sympathy must precede belligerence. First I must understand the other, as it were, from the inside; then I can critique it from the outside. So many people skip right to the latter." -- Steven D. Greydanus
Now blogging at Patheos.com. I can also still be found at Facebook, Twitter and Flickr. See also my film journal.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

I'm kind of amused, kind of hurt that you thing depicting terrorists as inhuman monsters is a conservative approach.

. But really, are we going to pretend that the conservative approach to talking about terrorists has been one that acknowledged their humanity? From the Bush administration on down to Hollywood, we were given portrayals of inhuman beasts who hate our freedom and so on. They were not painting the terrorists as wounded people choosing an evil and wrong path fueled by their anger at outside involvement in their affairs. They were heartless deviants without fear-only hate for our Freedom loving ways.

To suggest conservatives have presented a nuanced view of people who opt for terrorism seems...overly generous.

I haven't read NR's blurb on the film yet, but I think the "conservatism" has more to do with the American passengers who fight back vs. the German passenger who wants to be diplomatic and negotiate with the terrorists, etc.

I suppose. Of course, there was a time when negotiating was good enough for Reagan.

. But really, are we going to pretend that the conservative approach to talking about terrorists has been one that acknowledged their humanity? From the Bush administration on down to Hollywood, we were given portrayals of inhuman beasts who hate our freedom and so on. They were not painting the terrorists as wounded people choosing an evil and wrong path fueled by their anger at outside involvement in their affairs. They were heartless deviants without fear-only hate for our Freedom loving ways.

To suggest conservatives have presented a nuanced view of people who opt for terrorism seems...overly generous.

To put it bluntly, I'd say that it is at least an axiom of the Right, if not precisely or universally conservative, to advocate the outright slaughter of those who's primary weapon is indiscriminate killing of anyone, the bigger the numbers the better, to either make a point, or advance a cause. And who's principal defensive tactic is to hide among civillians, or to use them a shields. That is not to say that their humanity is denied, or that such filth are not equal in the eyes of God to us. It is to say that certainly the dialogue stopped when there was deployment of human bombs into the marketplace, or running explosive laden motorboats into the sides of vessles safely harbored.

I don't know how the Bush administration could have made it any plainer or clearer. This is not nuanced, but I'd say that nuance is valueless in an actual fight. Nuance is for when walking away after the fight, or well before a fight. There is no nuance to bombing coffee shops and train stations.

"During the contest trial, the Coleman team presented evidence of a further 6500 absentees that it felt deserved to be included under the process that had produced the prior 933 [submitted by Franken, rk]. The three judges finally defined what constituted a 'legal' absentee ballot. Countable ballots, for instance, had to contain the signature of the voter, complete registration information, and proper witness credentials.

But the panel only applied the standards going forward, severely reducing the universe of additional basentees the Coleman team could hope to have included. In the end, the three judges allowed about 350 additional absentees to be counted. The panel also did nothing about the hundreds, possibly thousands, of absentees that have already been legally included, yet are now 'illegal' according to the panel's own ex-post definition."

The Wall Street Journal editorial, April 18, 2009 concerning the Franken Coleman decision in the Minnesota U.S. Senate race of 2008.

I wonder if it would still make the list if it were true to the book of Far Side of the World (the subtitle of the film) in which instead of hunting out a French ship, they were after an American ship.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Interests:I was born in Iowa, but escaped at an early age. I grew up in a Christian family, was educated in a Christian school my Mom started and ran, and then went to Hamilton College at the age of 16. After getting a BA in Studio Arts, I went to work for InterVarsity Christian Fellowship, where I served for ten years. In 2003, I left IV to get my MDiv at Gordon-Conwell Seminary. I married the lovely Karina in July of 1997, our son Timothy was born in June of 2002, and Evelyn was born in July of 2006. I now serve as the pastor of Trinity Alliance Church near Rochester, NY.

I'm kind of amused, kind of hurt that you thing depicting terrorists as inhuman monsters is a conservative approach.

. But really, are we going to pretend that the conservative approach to talking about terrorists has been one that acknowledged their humanity? From the Bush administration on down to Hollywood, we were given portrayals of inhuman beasts who hate our freedom and so on. They were not painting the terrorists as wounded people choosing an evil and wrong path fueled by their anger at outside involvement in their affairs. They were heartless deviants without fear-only hate for our Freedom loving ways.

To suggest conservatives have presented a nuanced view of people who opt for terrorism seems...overly generous.

I'd say that both conservatives and liberals - as people - have problems acknowledging the full humanity of every person. Liberals seem to want to blame society for everyone's motives for doing things, denying that we are rational actors. And while I'd reject the phrase "inhuman beasts," I'd agree that Muslim terrorists hate us (in part) for our freedoms - not in a jealous sense, but in a theological judgment sense. No?

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

I'd say that both conservatives and liberals - as people - have problems acknowledging the full humanity of every person.

No disagreement there.

Liberals seem to want to blame society for everyone's motives for doing things, denying that we are rational actors.

I am not sure I can agree with this assessment. At least, pretty much every liberal I know believes people make their own moral choices, but that there are external forces (upbringing, current situations, etc) that can influence a persons responses and moral choices. They don't believe people are born racists/misogynists/etc, but that such things are shaped. That's not blaming society. Blaming society is claiming people have sex because they see it in the movies, or someone commits suicide because they listened to Ozzy Osbourne. Or a person became a murderer because they looked at porn. That kind of blame gaming is the realm both liberals and conservatives.

And while I'd reject the phrase "inhuman beasts," I'd agree that Muslim terrorists hate us (in part) for our freedoms - not in a jealous sense, but in a theological judgment sense. No?

I don't think I agree...I mean, theologically speaking, it' not an opposition to freedom that drives them.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Interests:I was born in Iowa, but escaped at an early age. I grew up in a Christian family, was educated in a Christian school my Mom started and ran, and then went to Hamilton College at the age of 16. After getting a BA in Studio Arts, I went to work for InterVarsity Christian Fellowship, where I served for ten years. In 2003, I left IV to get my MDiv at Gordon-Conwell Seminary. I married the lovely Karina in July of 1997, our son Timothy was born in June of 2002, and Evelyn was born in July of 2006. I now serve as the pastor of Trinity Alliance Church near Rochester, NY.

Liberals seem to want to blame society for everyone's motives for doing things, denying that we are rational actors.

I am not sure I can agree with this assessment. At least, pretty much every liberal I know believes people make their own moral choices, but that there are external forces (upbringing, current situations, etc) that can influence a persons responses and moral choices.

Of course, and conservatives agree that external forces play a strong role, but that at the level of actual behavior, personal choice is key. Both affirm the other's core point, but place the stress in a different place.

And while I'd reject the phrase "inhuman beasts," I'd agree that Muslim terrorists hate us (in part) for our freedoms - not in a jealous sense, but in a theological judgment sense. No?

I don't think I agree...I mean, theologically speaking, it' not an opposition to freedom that drives them.

I've spoken with and been friends with a large number of Muslims, and I've spent a lot of time studying Islam. From my best understanding, conservative Muslims would say that the kind of freedom America offers is a dangerous, dangerous thing. That's what Shar'ia law is all about. It's not about moral suasion, it's about external, rigid structures that enforce good behavior.